IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2015-404-002256
[2023] NZHC 917
BETWEEN JIA JUN QU
Plaintiff
AND
THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE PROPERTY OF JUN ZENG
Defendant
……………………….parties continued over
Hearing: [On the Papers] Appearances:
G P Blanchard KC and C Jiang for Plaintiffs
Judgment:
24 April 2023
JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J
[Quantum]
This judgment was delivered by me on 24 April 2023 at 3.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Counsel/Solicitors:
G P Blanchard KC, Auckland Tompkins Wake, Auckland
QU v THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE PROPERTY OF ZENG [2023] NZHC 917
[24 April 2023]
BETWEEN JIAN PING WANG
Second Plaintiff
YAN QU
Third Plaintiff
J M BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY LIMITED
Fourth Plaintiff
FORMODA REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Fifth Plaintiff
AND J & H DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
(in Liquidation) Second Defendant
HUIMAN ZHAO
Third Defendant
[1] In my judgment dated 25 November 2022, I found Ms Zhao liable for dishonest assistance in relation to the Flagstaff Land Loans and Flagstaff Construction Loans.1 I also found her liable on the knowing receipt cause of action.
[2] The judgment was for liability only. I sought further submissions on the quantification of the plaintiffs’ loss and in particular the calculation of interest. Further submissions were received by me on 5 April 2023.
[3] In light of those submissions, I am satisfied that interest should be awarded from 23 February 2017. This is the most beneficial date for Ms Zhao and is the relevant date whether the Judicature Act 1908 or the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 applies. The interest rate shall be calculated in accordance with the Interest on Money Claims Act.
[4] The submissions confirm that the possibility of double recovery may be addressed by deducting the sum awarded for the knowing receipt cause of action ($185,810) from the damages awarded for the dishonest assistance cause of action ($8,771,009) leaving a balance of $8,585,199.
[5]Accordingly, I enter judgment as follows:
(a)Ms Zhao shall pay the plaintiffs the sum of $8,585,199 for dishonest assistance in relation to the Flagstaff Land Loans and Flagstaff Construction Loans.
(b)Ms Zhao shall pay the plaintiffs the sum of $185,810 for knowing receipt.
(c)Interest shall accrue on the sums set out in (a) and (b) above from 23 February 2017 until the date of payment. The interest rate shall be calculated in accordance with the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.
1 Qu v The Official Assignee in the Bankruptcy of the Property of Zeng [2022] NZHC 3114.
(d)The claim for dishonest assistance in relation to the Misappropriated Funds is dismissed.
(e)Ms Zhao shall pay the plaintiffs’ costs and disbursements in the sum of
$19,722.
Edwards J
- AGLC
- Qu v Official Assignee in the bankruptcy of Zeng [2023] NZHC 917
- Case
- [2023] NZHC 917
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court needed to address involved determining the appropriate quantum of damages for the dishonest assistance and knowing receipt claims, and resolving the issue of potential double recovery. The court also had to decide on the applicable interest rate and the commencement date for the accrual of interest.
In his judgment, Justice Edwards resolved these issues by determining that the damages for dishonest assistance should be set at $8,771,009 and for knowing receipt at $185,810. He ruled that interest should accrue from 23 February 2017, at the rate specified under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, and that the possibility of double recovery could be addressed by deducting the knowing receipt sum from the dishonest assistance sum, resulting in a final award of $8,585,199. The court also dismissed the claim for dishonest assistance in relation to the Misappropriated Funds. Finally, the court ordered Huiman Zhao to pay the plaintiffs’ costs and disbursements amounting to $19,722.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.